Friday, May 3, 2019

GLAZOV VIDEO: AFTER THE JIHADIST PSYCHOPATH SEDUCES YOU

Why he sulks in the corner after punching you in the face — and you apologize.

 
0
 
On this new Jamie Glazov Video, Jamie focuses on After The Jihadist Psychopath Seduces You, explaining how the Islamic Supremacist sulks in the corner after punching you in the face -- and you apologize. Don't miss it!
 
 
Also check out Jamie's recent talk at the Freedom Center’s Wednesday Morning Club about his new bookfrom which the above clip is taken:
 
Also tune into Jamie Glazov's recent appearance on Governor Mike Huckabee’s TBN Show to discuss his new book:
Meanwhile, we are excited to announce that Jamie's new book is, at this moment, as indicated in the screen shot/graphic to the left, Amazon’s #1 Best Seller in the "Medical Mental Illness" category. It is also Amazon's #1 New Release in the “Islam” category.
Perhaps it is really no surprise, therefore, that Jihadist Psychopath has also been targeted by Twitter and Pakistan for violating Islamic blasphemy laws.
To learn about Jamie's unveiling of the Jihadist Psychopath's plantation -- and how we can escape from itCLICK HERE.
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.

MEDIA MATTERS' FAKE-NEWS PRO-SLAVERY HEADLINE

The morbid world of leftist libel.

 
9
In journalism, a "lede" is the introductory section of a news story, intended to entice the reader into reading the full story. Traditionally, the lede is the first (or "lead") paragraph. But in today's fast-paced news media, enticements include the story's headline, subheading and a short summary that precedes the actual story, usually distinguished by a different typeface.
The term "burying the lede" refers to a newspaper story that is downplaying the significance of the actual story by "burying" important information deep in the article. Now, "burying the lede" ought not be confused with "fake news," an expression popularized by President Donald Trump. After a recent television appearance, I experienced the latter. The term resonates due to left-wing outlets such as Media Matters, a website with a supposed mission of monitoring conservative opinion.
In my recent appearance on Fox News' "Fox & Friends," the hosts asked about Sen. Cory Booker's, D-N.J., plan to introduce a bill for reparations.
This is what I said, in its entirety:
"Slavery reparations, in my opinion, is the extraction of money from people who were never slave owners and given to people who were never slaves. It was just too long ago. Slavery ended 150 years ago. The parallels might be the reparation paid to Japanese Americans put in relocation camps in World War II. But those monies were paid to them who were victimized or to their legal heirs. Same thing with respect to [the] Holocaust. It's just too long ago.
"And what about intermarriage? What about people like [Sen.] Kamala Harris [D-Calif.]? Her father is from Haiti [actually, from Jamaica], and he has admitted that in his family, his family owned slaves. So does Kamala Harris pay a check, or does she receive a check? What about Obama? Obama's mother -- her ancestors owned slaves. His father is from Kenya. That area of Africa was a hot point for slave trading on the part of Africans enslaved by other Africans and then sold to European and Arab slavers by African chieftains. Does Obama pay a check, or does he get a check? I mean, the whole thing is absolutely absurd.
"And look, think tanks on the left and on the right have pretty much said the same thing about how one escapes poverty and gets to the middle class. Finish high school, don't have a kid before you're 20 and get married before you have a kid. You follow that formula, you will not be poor. And they don't say that formula does not apply to blacks or does not apply to people who used to have ancestors who were slaves. This is America for crying out loud! This is the greatest country in all of human creation. You can go from nothing to something faster than in any other country in the world. And we ought to be taking advantage of the opportunities that we have right now instead of fighting old battles. It is divisive. Even Obama opposed reparations in 2016 when he was asked about it, primarily because he thought it would be politically too divisive. And he's right. It is unpopular. Only about 26% of Americans support reparations. Let's knock it off and let's move on."
A host asked a follow-up question: "What do you say about the inequity in society, that racism exists and this is one way to equal the playing field?" So, I added:
"Look, in 1940, 87% of blacks lived below the federally defined level of poverty. Twenty years later, in 1960, that number had been cut to 47% -- a 40-point drop in 20 years. The greatest 20-year period of economic expansion for blacks in history. This is before the welfare state, before race-based preferences. My point is the real problem right now are left-wing policies that have made things worse. The welfare state has incentivized women to marry the government and allowed men to abandon their financial and moral responsibility. And Obama said a kid without a father is five times more likely to be poor, nine times more likely to drop out of school, 20 times more likely to end up in jail. Let's talk about what the welfare state has done to destabilize the black family. During slavery, a black kid was more likely to be born under a roof with his biological mother and biological father than today. That's the problem. Let's deal with that."
Again, this is entirely what I said. When I got home from the studio, I saw this headline, atop my picture, in Media Matters: "Fox & Friends guest: Black families were better off as slaves."
Words fail.

MUSLIM FEDERATION FACEBOOK MANAGER CALLS JEWS ‘DEMONIC’ AND US ‘WORLD’S #1 TERRORIST'

Abdur Rahman al-Ghani posts that Democracy is evil and Islam will overtake the world.

 
4
The South Florida Muslim Federation (SFMF), the umbrella organization for South Florida’s many Islamic extremist groups, like most organizations, has a presence on social media. But unlike most organizations, this one’s Facebook page is managed by an individual who has previously used this same outlet to publicly degrade Jews, homosexuals and America and to call for violence. This piece is not meant to change this organization, SFMF, but to expose it.
SFMF was founded in April 2017 and incorporated in December 2017. Among its founding organizations were groups with significant ties to international terrorism, including Islamic Relief (IR), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Currently, the group is headed by a former executive leader of CAIR, Nezar Hamze. As well, the SFMF Public Relations Director, Wilfredo Ruiz, is from CAIR.
The Manager of SFMF’s Facebook page is Abdur Rahman al-Ghani. Al-Ghani is well known to the South Florida radical Muslim community, as he has previously held the positions of Youth Director and Events Coordinator for the Islamic Foundation of South Florida (IFSF), one of SFMF’s member organizations.
Al-Ghani, whose real name is Samuel Pittman, grew up near Washington, DC, in Norfolk, Virginia. He was raised by a single mother and went to church regularly. He was introduced to Islam, through the Nation of Islam, around the age of 20. He has been living in Florida, since 2005. His wife is Pakistani.
Al-Ghani is an interesting yet not surprising choice to run the SFMF Facebook page. Al-Ghani has, in the recent past, made a number of highly offensive and controversial posts on this social media platform, including posts that are heavily anti-Semitic and violent in nature.
Al-Ghani believes Jews are inherently wicked and in control of the media and world banking system, which he refers to as the “Global Zionist Banksters Plan.” In June 2011, under a video al-Ghani posted, titled ‘Jews control World Economy,’ he wrote, “Secular ‘Zionist’ Jews are the one’s destroying The World today.” In March 2012, he quoted little known anti-Semite Elizabeth Templar, stating, “Bolshevic Jews are the children of Satan.” In September 2012, he repeated a wild myth about how most Jews are the descendants of European converts to Judaism, writing, “80% of so-called Jews are really Ashkenazi Zionist, a derivative of the Khazarians.”
In November 2012, al-Ghani quoted Pope Clement VIII, stating, “All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit.” Also in November 2012, al-Ghani described the Middle Eastern Gulf states as “COWARDS and PUPPETS of the ‘zionist controlled’ US.” In December 2012, he wrote, “Zionist/Israelis are not holy people. They are demonic and the most evil on earth.” And in January 2013, under a story about Saudi Arabian jets aiding US military strikes on Yemen, al-Ghani posted a link to a cartoon depicting an Arab male prostrating himself on a US flag at the foot of a large menorah with a Jewish star atop it.
In November 2012, al-Ghani targeted homosexuals, quoting an individual named Alioune Ndiaye, who had written about the opening of a gay-friendly mosque in France. Al-Ghani’s post states, “If you are gay, you are not a Muslim, you are a stone cold kaffir outside the fold of Islam. No one is born gay, it is a sickness a person nurses either from their evil desires, or a behavior that was learnt either from abuse or from being evil by nature… May the curse of Allah be upon these people who are trying to make a mockery of our deen…”
Though he resides here, Al-Ghani hates the United States and those who fight to defend her. In April 2012, he posted a graphic labeling the US the “Worlds Number One Terrorist Organization.” And in September 2012, al-Ghani posted a photo of a group of Egyptians tearing up an American flag and lifting up what has become known as the black flag of ISIS. Al-Ghani’s personal description of this reads, “Anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt. Putting down ‘AMERICAN FLAG’ and Raising the “ISLAMIC FLAG - AR RAYAA.”
Al-Ghani is very much in favor of an Islamic State for the US and much of the world. He despises anything concerning democracy. In March 2011, he wrote, “No one wants Democracy!!! We Don’t Need A Kaffar System To Rob Us, And Neglect The Needs Of The People. TRASH THEM!” In November 2011, he posted a picture of someone holding a sign reading, “Democracy is Cancer. Islam is the Answer.”
In March 2012, al-Ghani posted a graphic stating, “ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD.” And in April 2012, he posted a graphic of the prohibition sign over the word “Democracy” and the picture of a demon. Next to the graphic, he wrote, “JUST SAY NO!!!... TO democracy, parliaments and dictators! KHILAFAH or nothing!!!”
Al-Ghani has, as well, posted material in support of terrorist organizations and threatening violence against US institutions. In February 2012, he posted a bloodied CIA logo with the caption, “Wiping out the CIA.” In November 2012, he posted a photo containing Hamas militants with the caption, “The few the brave. They are not [a] regular army. They have nothing to fight [for] except a strong faith on Allah. We love u Hamas. U are the real hero.” Al-Ghani, further, openly promotes the internationally banned Hizb-ut-Tahrir, advertising the group’s viewpoints and events.
Al-Ghani is a fan of deceased al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki. In May 2011, al-Ghani complained about America’s lethal targeting of al-Awlaki with a drone strike. He wrote, “So The u.s. Is Now Invading Every Islamic Land At Will, To Kill And Destroy Whomever and Whatever It Wants… LETS FORM KHILAFAH FOR THE LANDS WHERE WE LIVE, TO PROTECT OUR MUSLIM BROTHERS AND SISTER’S, INSHA ALLAH.” In September 2012, al-Ghani paid homage to al-Awlaki, posting an image bearing al-Awlaki’s name and containing a black Islamic flag, with the ominous caption, “ALLAH IS PREPARING US FOR VICTORY.”
The vast majority of the above posts are still found on al-Ghani’s Facebook page, evidence that al-Ghani’s fanatical views are very much intact. And while most organizations would run away from people like al-Ghani, the South Florida Muslim Federation, which is made up of dozens of radical Muslim groups, openly welcomes such monsters.
Abdur Rahman al-Ghani, a.k.a. Samuel Pittman, is a clear threat to the United States and her populace, and any organizations that associate with him (i.e. IFSF and SFMF) should be considered threats, as well, and should be shut down immediately.
Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

THE NY-TIMES' 

JEW-HATING CESSPOOL

Many are surprised, but they shouldn't be.

 
4
Michael Ledeen is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center and Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
The Times. New York, that is.   
As Roger Simon says, it isn’t just about the Jews and Israel, it’s everything.  And it isn’t a new departure, but part of a long-standing pattern.  The dreadful newspaper did not support the rescue of Jewish refugees from the Third Reich.  Its owners, the Sulzbergers, were German Jewish immigrants who were contemptuous of East German Jews (Poland, especially), and editorially asked FDR to block entry to the East Europeans, most famously those on board the St Louis, which incredibly was sent back to the Nazis.
Moreover, the Times consistently underplayed the dimensions of the Holocaust, one of the reasons American military officers, including Eisenhower himself, were so horrified by what they saw when they entered the liberated concentration camps. Ike sent a message to Congressional leaders urging them to visit, because it was impossible to imagine the horror.  Even General Patton was overcome by nausea when he first entered.
The Times has repeatedly called for “understanding” our enemies, especially totalitarians.  The newspaper’s Moscow reporter, Walter Duranty, denied the forced starvation of the Ukrainian people in the early 1930s (for which he outrageously was awarded a Pulitzer Prize, still displayed at NYT headquarters), and similarly called on President Reagan to tone down his attacks on the Soviet Gulag Archipelago.  They warned Reagan not to push the Soviets’ back against the wall, lest Brezhnev or Gorbachev get angry.  Omri Ceren put it nicely in a tweet:
NYT spent decades defending antisemitic smears & BDS as legit criticism of Israel. They pushed Obama admin's agenda via Jew trackers & stories exploiting oppressed Iran Jews. They wove Jews into Russiagate conspiracism. You can't do that without having effect on newsroom culture.
The latest anti-Semitic cartoons are just the most recent, not something brand new.  The Times has always oppose American leaders who see “peace” as something abstractly desirable, instead of understanding that peace is imposed on the loser of a battle or war.  Hence the Times did not want the United States to defeat the Soviet Empire in the Cold War, and certainly did not want the fall of Gorbachev along with Reagan’s historic victory.  As Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer elegantly proclaimed, the Times was similarly hostile towards Israel in general and Prime Minister Netanyahu in particular, because they fought back against their enemies and sought to bring about a real peace in the Middle East.  The breathtaking realignment of Israel’s relations with the Arab world might seem worthy of praise, but no.  Instead, the Times is “a cesspool of hostility towards Israel."
Many are surprised, but they should not be.  The liberal Jews who own, edit, and in large part write the newspaper, only embraced Zionism when Israel was governed by socialists, even if they came from Eastern Europe.  That changed when Menachem Begin became prime minister, and the political center of gravity moved to the right, where it firmly rests today.
Ambassador Dermer well understands the dynamic, because he knows the history of the newspaper and its top dogs.
The same New York Times that a century ago mostly hid from their readers the Holocaust of the Jewish people has today made its pages a safe-space for those who hate the Jewish state,” Dermer said. “Through biased coverage, slanderous columns and antisemitic cartoons, its editors shamefully choose week after week to cast the Jewish state as a force for evil.
Listen to Roger.  It isn’t just about Jews and Israel.  It’s the whole thing.

SPEAKER PELOSI DEFAMES ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR

Maliciously accuses Barr of lying to Congress.

 
5
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has accused Attorney General William Barr of lying to Congress about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report and the Special Counsel’s concerns with how Attorney General Barr characterized the report’s findings. “What is deadly serious about it is the attorney general of the United States of America is not telling the truth to the Congress of the United States. That’s a crime,” Speaker Pelosi told reporters. “He lied to Congress. If anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime. Nobody is above the law.”
Frustrated that their Russian-Trump conspiracy narrative has gone up in smoke, Democrats are looking to hang an obstruction of justice charge around President Trump’s neck and are targeting Attorney General Barr as a convenient scapegoat for getting in their way. Speaker Pelosi’s accusation of criminal conduct against Mr. Barr is a desperate act that crosses the line into malicious falsehood of her own.
Speaker Pelosi followed the example of such lightweights on the Senate Judiciary Committee as Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, who made the same charge Wednesday during Mr. Barr’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on which she sits. Senator Hirono followed up her baseless accusation with this bit of self-praise: "Please, Mr. Attorney General, give us some credit for knowing what the hell is going on around here with you." The only thing that Senator Hirono deserves “credit” for after her disgraceful performance during Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing and during Mr. Barr’s Wednesday appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee is how easily she embarrasses herself.
Pelosi and Hirono were apparently in a lather over testimony that Attorney General Barr gave to the House Appropriations Committee last month that his accusers claim was perjurious. They contend that Mr. Barr misrepresented his knowledge of the Mueller team’s displeasure over how he characterized the Mueller report's findings in his 4-page letter summary of the report’s bottom line conclusions that he presented to Congress and the public on March 24th. A letter that Mr. Mueller had sent to Mr. Barr before Mr. Barr’s April 9th testimony to the House committee had voiced Mr. Mueller’s concern that Mr. Barr had not fully captured “the context, nature, and substance” of the Special Counsel Office’s “work and conclusions.” In responding to a question by Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla) about press reports claiming that the Mueller team was unhappy with what Mr. Barr had written in his short summary of conclusions to Congress, Mr. Barr did not elude to the Mueller letter.
Here is the supposedly infamous exchange:
Rep. Charlie Crist, D-Fla.: “Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter. ... Do you know what they are referencing with that?”
Barr: “No, I don’t. I think I think, I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but in my view I was not interested in putting out summaries.” 
There is absolutely nothing misleading in Mr. Barr’s response. As the attorney general told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, his dealings were directly with Special Counsel Mueller, not members of his staff. Therefore, he could not be certain what was in their minds. Nevertheless, Mr. Barr correctly surmised that staff members were frustrated for the same reason that Mr. Mueller had expressed in his letter to Mr. Barr and his subsequent phone conversation. They wanted more information “put out” into the public domain, including the detailed summaries prepared by the Mueller team. However, Mr. Barr thought it was not wise to release portions of the Mueller report, including the detailed summaries, in a piecemeal fashion, especially before the review process for possible necessary redactions was completed. In any event, according to Mr. Barr, Special Counsel Mueller did not refute the accuracy of Mr. Barr’s March 24th letter during a telephone conversation subsequent to Mr. Mueller’s letter to Mr. Barr. And as Attorney General Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, the objective of his March 24th letter was simply to “notify the people as to the bottom line conclusion. We were not trying to summarize the 410-page report. So I offered Bob Mueller the opportunity to review that letter before it went out and he declined."
Moreover, the whole matter involving how Mr. Barr characterized the Mueller report is now moot. More than 90 percent of the Mueller report was made publicly available within 10 days after Attorney General Barr’s testimony to the House Appropriations Committee. Congress and the public were soon able to read the report for themselves and draw their own conclusions.
There is also absolutely nothing misleading in Mr. Barr’s original March 24th letter to Congress in how he described the bottom-line conclusions of the Mueller report. Regarding the allegation of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russians to interfere with the 2016 presidential election, the attorney general quoted from the Mueller report: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” That was the verdict, to which the attorney general added some information from the Mueller report on the principal means by which Russia sought to influence the election. He also referenced the fact that there were multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.
Regarding obstruction of justice, Attorney General Barr accurately reported that “The Special Counsel…did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”
Again, Mr. Barr accurately communicated the bottom-line verdict – or, in this case, the lack of one – in the Mueller report. Mr. Barr did not summarize each of the incidents described in the Mueller report that might or might not give rise to a finding of obstruction of justice. He did not have to do so since the Special Counsel decided not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment as to criminal liability regarding those incidents. Besides, the mostly unredacted report, with a full description of the incidents, would be made available to the public shortly thereafter.
Mr. Mueller left the decision up to the attorney general as to whether the conduct described in the Mueller report constitutes the crime of obstruction of justice. Attorney General Barr, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, concluded that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” For reasons far stronger than former FBI Director James Comey’s determination that Hillary Clinton had lacked the requisite intent to commit a crime in connection with her handling of government e-mails on her private server, the evidence described in the Mueller report comes nowhere close to proving corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker Pelosi owes Attorney General Barr an apology for her slanderous ad hominem attack on the attorney general’s character and veracity. Of course, this self-righteous Trump hater and her cohorts would never apologize. She is also a hypocrite of the first order. When Republicans in the House called for a contempt-of-Congress vote against then-Attorney General Eric Holder for allegedly failing to cooperate in their probe of the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, then-House Minority Leader Pelosi claimed that the Republicans were targeting Mr. Holder because his Department of Justice was cracking down on state voter ID laws. When the attorney general was a Democrat, Ms. Pelosi defended his obstruction of a congressional oversight investigation on nonsensical grounds. When the attorney general is a Republican, she distorts what the attorney general actually said and wrote to Congress just to score cheap political points, even if it means defaming his character with maliciously false charges. We should not be surprised.

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *